On 01.12.2019 21:36, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
On Dec 1, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02-Dec-19 08:09, John Levine wrote:
In article <1a1726cf-70a0-019d-1138-c5e22f258d4d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write:
I thought the format was a compromise between US Letter format, A4
format, and printers.
I thought it was 72 characters because that's how many you got on a
punch card, leaving 8 for the sequence number.
Keith is right and it was one of Postel+Reynolds's wiser decisions. The only case where it goes wrong is with software or printers that fail to recognise the FF (form feed) character correctly.
Phill is correct that it wastes some white space; that's the price of fitting into both paper sizes. When I print drafts, which is rarely, I do it "booklet" style which limits waste paper considerably.
As we discussed 3 years ago, numbered pagination is useful in a printable format but irrelevant in a screen-only format.
except for references - section numbers are frequently far too far apart when you want to point someone to a particular
chunk of text
...
That's why in the new format, paragraphs get numbers, too. (in HTML,
where it really matters).
Best regards, Julian (ducks)
